|
Author
|
Topic: The Theory of evolution in the Perspective of Thermodynamics and Experience-de Jong
|
William DeJong
Member
Member # 1162
|
posted 10. October 2006 17:34
quote:
Sciwall , posted 03. October 2006: I think what you are saying here is that if you take a thermometer and placed it free floating in space at various points on the surface 'S' which is a 100,000 km out from 2ndearth, the thermometer would read the same everywhere. Is this your basic premise?
This is exactly what I'm saying. But pay attention when you measure the temperature in space (or inside a room that is heated by the sun entering through a window). Don't put your thermometer directly in the sun! If you do that, you don't measure the intensity of the vibrations of the gas molecules in space (or inside a room) against your thermometer, but you measure the bombardment of your thermometer by the photons directly coming from the sun.
quote:
John A. Davison , 03. October 2006: Macroevolution is not in conflict with anything because it happened. That is without question and cannot be denied by any objective observer of the fossil record. The only issue that has ever been in question is the MECHANISM by which it took place.
John A. Davison , 04. October 2006: Macroevolution is neither a theory nor an hypothesis. It is a reality which cannot be denied by any objective observer of the fossil record.
In conclusion nr. 10 mentioned in my post of 03. October, I have given four arguments why the macro-evolution theory (posing that random processes have made basic substances order themselves into building blocks for life, self replicating molecules, RNA, DNA, cells and organisms) is as invalid as the theory that the earth is flat. The micro-evolution theory, on the contrary, which explains the continuous development of living nature by the mechanism of variation and selection of allele combinations from the gene pool of a species, is a valid and powerful theory, which is grounded in numerous empirical observations and experiments. Within living memory, farmers have exploited this mechanism in animal and plant breeding, resulting in the miniscule Chihuahua or the huge Irish Wolfhound, the child-friendly Welsh pony or the fierce Arabian horse, milk or meat cows, juicy or fleshy oranges, single or multi-blossom tulips, summer or winter wheat, et cetera. The environment of organisms can conduct the selection of advantageous allele combinations as well. If an environment only supplies hard seeds, finches with an allele combination that results in a broad beak will have an advantage over finches with an allele combination that results in a sharp beak. After several generations, most finches in the population will possess an allele combination for a broad beak.
When observing the fossil record, any objective observer will notice that the shape of organisms may vary along a number of dimensions (small - large; broad - sharp; firm - fragile; curved - flat; et cetera). These variations can be explained fully by the mechanism of variation and selection of allele combinations from the gene pool of a species. We, however, do not observe a multitude of organisms that differ fundamentally from the organisms we find on Earth today (except a number of organisms that are extinct now). The fossil record, thus, contradicts the macro-evolution theory.
[ 10. October 2006, 17:45: Message edited by: William DeJong ]
IP: Logged
|
|
sciwall
Member
Member # 2454
|
posted 10. October 2006 20:35
quote:
This is exactly what I'm saying. But pay attention when you measure the temperature in space (or inside a room that is heated by the sun entering through a window). Don't put your thermometer directly in the sun! If you do that, you don't measure the intensity of the vibrations of the gas molecules in space (or inside a room) against your thermometer, but you measure the bombardment of your thermometer by the photons directly coming from the sun
Okay William, how about this - you take a metal sphere and fill it with water. Place a thermocouple in the the center of the liquid and place this sphere at points along the surface S you describe out a good ways from 2ndEarth. No photons from the sun are bombarding the thermocouple. Will the temperature of the thermocouple read the same with the sphere on any point on surface S?
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 11. October 2006 01:50
DeJong
I can only assume that you are completely ignorant of the reality of organic evolution and certainly of my papers and those of my sources, some the most brilliant biologists of all times. Macroevolution is not to be challenged, only explained. Darwinian mechanisms have never been able to achieve anything beyond the generation of intraspecific varieties none of which were ever incipient species anyway.
"A past evoluition is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
Martin
Member
Member # 2001
|
posted 11. October 2006 14:07
quote:
If an environment only supplies hard seeds, finches with an allele combination that results in a broad beak will have an advantage over finches with an allele combination that results in a sharp beak. After several generations, most finches in the population will possess an allele combination for a broad beak.
No doubt there are other examples which cited also Davison in Manifesto and that are no way to be explained by such simple process. Davison cited Punnet who believed that gradualismus cannot explain many baffling examples of mimicry and macroevolutionary saltus is needed. Problem of mimicry consist in fact that to be effective there have to be initial resemlance between model and mimic to be deceptive for predators. No initial gradually step is enough to do this. Even today many experts on mimicry conform with view of saltationism even if in guise of "genetic effect of large magnitude".
Maybe you did not see one of most puzzling case of mimicry, where we have 14 different female morphs of Papilio Dardanus and many of them mimics unpalatable species (Batesian mimicry):
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/taxome/jim/Mim2/dardanus.html
According Nijhout (2003) :
"Initial step in the evolution of mimicry is likely to have been due to a genetic effect of large magnitude".
http://www.nbb.cornell.edu/neurobio/BioNB420/Dardanus2003.pdf
There are other curiosities, that I would say support Davison theory of derepression instead of darwinism. Because do darwinian have enough fantasy to explain even origin of mimetism described by Poulton, when mimics and his model lived in different and distatnt areas?
For instance Limenitis albomaculata lives in West China and their model - males Hypolimnas misippus - southeast Asia?
http://main2.amu.edu.pl/~skoracka/china/tn_49.html
http://www.inra.fr/papillon/papilion/nymphali/texteng/h_misipp.htm
(One darwinian explanation is this: it is due migrating birds that somehow remember archetypes of unpalatable species and to image of which mimic species in West China accomodated!)
[ 11. October 2006, 14:09: Message edited by: Martin ]
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 11. October 2006 16:16
Martin
My interpretation is that similar forms were reading the same preformed, "prescribed" blueprints at the time of their appearnce. That is the whole thrust of the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis (PEH.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
Martin
Member
Member # 2001
|
posted 12. October 2006 00:59
John,
It might be that I misinterpret your view as far as patterns of butterflies wings because holding Punnet "saltus" you cited in Manifesto somehow with prescribed idea. If you do not hold view that different patterns were also somehow present before their expression and butterfly species only somehow pick up from preexisting patterns - or better "archetypes of patterns" - then I apologized.
Another by no way darwinistic explanation is this - butterflies take picture, photograph some patterns by optical way and so create wing patterns.
Now I want to make little study if crypsis in peppered moths even exists, because on research of Majerus in UV light which birds detect crypsis of carbonaria and typica on foliose lichens are reverse as human see it!
So might be that many examples that we hold for crypsis have nothing to do with it and theory of Franfurkter constructivism school that predators do not see crypsis might be right. Anyway darwinism is theory that will lost if no-crypsis in eyes of predators proved to be right.
IP: Logged
|
|
William DeJong
Member
Member # 1162
|
posted 19. October 2006 05:19
quote:
William , posted 10 October: This is exactly what I'm saying. But pay attention when you measure the temperature in space (or inside a room that is heated by the sun entering through a window). Don't put your thermometer directly in the sun! If you do that, you don't measure the intensity of the vibrations of the gas molecules in space (or inside a room) against your thermometer, but you measure the bombardment of your thermometer by the photons directly coming from the sun.
Sciwall , posted 10 October: Okay William, how about this - you take a metal sphere and fill it with water. Place a thermocouple in the center of the liquid and place this sphere at points along the surface S you describe out a good ways from 2ndEarth. No photons from the sun are bombarding the thermocouple. Will the temperature of the thermocouple read the same with the sphere on any point on surface S?
You measure the temperature inside your metal sphere filled with water, not the temperature in space.
quote:
John A. Davison , 03. October 2006: Macroevolution is not in conflict with anything because it happened. That is without question and cannot be denied by any objective observer of the fossil record. The only issue that has ever been in question is the MECHANISM by which it took place.
John A. Davison , 04. October 2006 : Macroevolution is neither a theory nor an hypothesis. It is a reality which cannot be denied by any objective observer of the fossil record.
John A. Davison , 10 October 2006 Macroevolution is not to be challenged, only explained.
Every design department in industry has its own "scrapheap" of new products that did not make it when building it, or testing it, or bringing it to the market, or competing with other products. In general, out of 10 innovations (something really new, as an opposite of only a modification of a yet existing design) are able to survive in the marketplace. The essence of the macro-evolution theory is that random processes can make differences of information and complexity grow, and are able to create - for instance - a whale out of a four legged land mammal. Suppose that such a random mechanism would actually exist, its "scrapheap" would be thousands of times larger than the scrapheaps of the designers in our industries. The fossil record, however, does not show a scrapheap at all. We just observe the products of the process of micro-evolution by variation and selection of allele combinations from the gene pool of species, as present today in living nature and in our bio-industries. Our conclusion can only be that the fossil record does not support the existence of a random process that can make a species leave its systemspace spanned by its gene pool, and make it move into new dimensions.
The theory that all matter consists of the four elements 'water', 'air', 'fire' and 'earth' has been established among scholars since the times of Aristotle (about 350 B.C.) until its falsification by Robert Boyle about 350 years ago. For about two thousand years, scholars were convinced that after removing these four elements, a fifth element (in Latin: quinta essentia) would be found. Many of them have devoted their lives to finding the "quintessence" of matter. Today, we are busy searching for a hidden mechanism in matter that can make differences grow and produce ever-complex molecular structures and systems. If we take the laws of empirical science seriously, or our everyday experience, or the initial and adjusted Miller-experiment, or our knowledge of how innovations are produced in the design departments of our industries, or if we observe the fossil record unprejudiced, we find that such a random mechanism cannot and does not exist. We should aim our intelligence and scholarly energy on fighting the omnipresent property of our universe that all differences (for instance, of energy, information and complexity) ultimately equalize. The real world is completely different from the fantasy world of macro-evolution by random processes.
We should not join the Alchemists in their search for the quintessence of matter, and return to the Dark Ages .
IP: Logged
|
|
sciwall
Member
Member # 2454
|
posted 19. October 2006 11:08
quote:
You measure the temperature inside your metal sphere filled with water, not the temperature in space.
Sure, but if we leave it in space for long enough, it will come into thermal equilibrium with the surrounding environment and the temperature at the thermocouple would be the same as in the surrounding space, right?
So, if we take this metal sphere, and place it at various points on surface S, each time letting it reach thermal equilibrium with its surroundings, will it read the same everywhere on surface S?
IP: Logged
|
|
2ndclass
Member
Member # 1979
|
posted 19. October 2006 19:19
JAD:
quote:
Let the record show that 2nd class has failed to produce an example of themodynamic law acting to produce complexity.
- Let the record show that 2ndclass never claimed that proscriptive laws can produce anything.
- Let the record also show that JAD did make a claim, namely that increasing biocomplexity is a thermodynamic impossibility, and that he refused to support it.
- Let the record also show that 2ndclass isn't surprised.
And I see that the thermo discussion is still stalled on the question of whether night is colder than day at an altitude of 100,000 km. Thanks for stepping in, sciwall. You're far more articulate and patient than I am.
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 20. October 2006 05:05
Where did I say that increasing complexity is a thermodynamic impossibility?
What I recall saying is that thermodynamics has contributed absolutely nothing to our understanding of either ontogeny or phylogeny.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
2ndclass
Member
Member # 1979
|
posted 20. October 2006 12:19
JAD:
quote:
Where did I say that increasing complexity is a thermodynamic impossibility?
Here:
quote:
While each chemical step cannot violate chemical law and doesn't, the effect of those same reactions within the living system is to lead to greater complexity, clearly a thermodynamic impossibility.
Since biocomplexity increases through chemical steps, you sure seem to be claiming that increasing biocomplexity is a thermodynamic impossibility. If I misunderstood your claim, then I apologize, and perhaps you can clarify it.
And whatever your claim is, I'm curious to know how you support it.
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 20. October 2006 16:06
Sorry about that. I apologize. I meant that the increase could not have come about entirely through "natural processes." I can see where I misrepresented what I meant and I apologize for forgetting what I said. The notion that either the origin of life or its subsequent evolution are intrinsic in non-living materials is absurd. Since I see no evidence for the supernatural today, I have been forced to postulate its existence in the past. I realize this is not a very satisfactory situation but for the life of me I cannot see how it can be avoided.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
2ndclass
Member
Member # 1979
|
posted 20. October 2006 17:29
John, thank you for your very amicable reply.
IP: Logged
|
|
William DeJong
Member
Member # 1162
|
posted 31. October 2006 06:10
quote:
Sciwall : posted 19. October 2006 . So, if we take this metal sphere, and place it at various points on surface S, each time letting it reach thermal equilibrium with its surroundings, will it read the same everywhere on surface S?
On the surface of a 100,000 km radius imaginary sphere S with 2ndEarth in its center, the temperature in space is equal everywhere. If a structural temperature difference would be present, a heat engine could be fed by this difference, and produce an additional amount of energy. This however is impossible, since S is in equilibrium with its surroundings and the influx of energy equals the outflux. Sphere S is a "zero-left-term-system" for which the entropy increases.
When measuring the temperature of the air in a sunny garden, we should not put our thermometer directly in the sun but in a "meteorologic box", which allows the air molecules to enter freely and hit the thermometer, but prevents the sun to shine directly on the thermometer. When measuring the temperature in space, we should also apply such a meteorologic box. If you do not put your thermometer in a meteorologic box but in a metal sphere filled with water, you will not measure the temperature in space, but the temperature inside a metal sphere filled with water. (Notice that the free movement of molecules through space is incomparable with the movement of water molecules captured in a metal sphere)
In space traveling, satellites are provided with energy panels to harness the radiation of the sun and to drive the electrical equipment on board. How wonderful it would be if these sophisticated, fragile, and expensive panels could be replaced by a simple Perspex sphere with a stone hanging in its center casting a shadow on the sphere, producing a structural temperature difference to feed a heat engine driving the equipment on board. Such ideas, however, are nonsense and can only come up from the fantasy world of macro-evolution by random processes.
In the real world, random processes cannot maintain differences (e.g. of temperature, concentration, energy, information or complexity) and expand these differences ever further. We have to live with this fundamental property of reality.
IP: Logged
|
|
sciwall
Member
Member # 2454
|
posted 31. October 2006 17:11
quote:
On the surface of a 100,000 km radius imaginary sphere S with 2ndEarth in its center, the temperature in space is equal everywhere.
So William, just want to make sure you know what you are talking about -
If we took the metal sphere filled with water and a thermocouple in the center and placed it at various points on the surface S, what would it say?
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
